Locals share their vision for the New York City skyline.
By: David Campbell
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers punched a hole in the New York City skyline.
Princeton’s premier architects say the catastrophe may or may not bring about the decline of that uniquely American of architectural forms, the skyscraper. But they agree that when the wreckage in lower Manhattan is finally cleared, commercial mega-towers like the ones brought crashing down by two hijacked commercial jetliners should not be erected there.
Instead, a meaningful memorial should be built on what has become a hugely spiritual site, as a symbol of grievous tragedy.
"The terrorists created a void, and that void is now hallowed ground," said Prof. Ralph Lerner, dean of the Princeton University School of Architecture.
Prof. Lerner said skyscrapers will endure as long as the forces that create them remain in place, such as the economic and cultural resources that make them possible. But he strongly opposed building any commercial space where the Trade Center towers once stood.
"Rebuild the city around the site and replace all the lost square footage," Prof. Lerner said. "The city can find a way to do that, but I’m not in any way in favor of building on that site. It’s a void and it has to stay that way. Memory is very important."
Architect Robert Hillier believes there needs to be a memorial of some kind, but said, "Whatever is built will be driven by market considerations. First, we have to get through a lot of pain before we start thinking clearly about what it ought to be."
Mr. Hillier recalled the USS Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor, built over the submerged ship, as an example of personal and emotionally moving memorialization. The Arizona was fully fueled when it was sunk in the Japanese attack; to this day, about once every minute, a single drop of oil rises from the wreck.
"It is just an unbelievable symbol," Mr. Hillier said. "I was more taken emotionally by that drop of oil than by the hulk of that battleship down below."
Of a possible memorial for lower Manhattan, Mr. Hillier said, "I think you need something that’s much more a recall of the human life lost than of the architecture. Something at ground level would be more appropriate."
Will the attack spell the end of the skyscraper?
"I think that, actually, in spite of the World Trade Center (attack), America is returning to its cities," Mr. Hillier said. "But when you get into icon architecture of 100 stories or more, you’re clearly creating targets for terrorists."
Mr. Hillier continued, "I don’t know if we will continue to go up. Thirty- and 40-story buildings will be fine because they will not be targets. There’s no glamour for a terrorist hitting a 40-story building."
After a generation passes, he said, Americans may be ready to return to erecting skyscrapers.
Architect Robert Geddes said that New York may have difficulty designing a memorial to adequately represent the tragedy that occurred there.
"Whether we will rise to the occasion here, we do not know," he said. "I know that in Dresden and Berlin the way to memorialize was to leave pieces of it standing. There certainly will be a profound amount of thought given to what is appropriate."
Mr.Geddes said economic considerations likely will drive whatever is built. He said the twin towers, which he referred to as "a vertical expression of the economic platform," took advantage of the public transportation in lower Manhattan such as subway service and other infrastructure.
In fact, he said, lower Manhattan exists as a vital economic center precisely because of transportation infrastructure.
"The economic reality is a very important consideration," he said. "Some equivalent density is needed, but I see no reason for a mega-tower. It should not be that way."
Mr. Geddes said the duration of time the towers stood following impacts from the jetliners is a testament to good technological performance of the architecture.
But he said the towers’ great failure was in the realm of social performance.
"One of the purposes of buildings is to create social interactions among people," he said. "The tall building does not do that. It is an alienating factor, removed from the ground and nature, removed from the street."
Mr. Geddes, a member of the New York Institute for the Humanities, said he has been invited to join New York architects and arts societies’ representatives to discuss possible uses for the site.
"It’s time again for an architecture of humanism, an architecture of human scale," he said.
Architect Michael Graves said a reassessment of the World Trade Center site is necessary. The towers, as they were, were "an incredible symbol," he said.
"It’s not just towers, it’s what they contain, where they are," he said.
Mr. Graves said the towers have "never, for me, symbolized great architecture. For me, no building has to be that tall."
He continued, "There’s something odd about the drive to make the tallest, widest anything. It’s quantity, not quality."
Mr. Graves said he would prefer to see the site be given a memorial and left essentially undeveloped. Otherwise, he said, he hopes any new development there can be something culturally redeeming.
"In terms of replacement architecture, rather than seeing another singular office identity, that doesn’t interest me at all," he said. "A microcosm of a great city would be preferred."
Mr. Graves said such a design could incorporate offices, houses, retail, cultural destinations and schools.

